>2014+12>Rifled tank guns acknowledged as superiors>Bong Cold War HESH obsession is vindicatedApolochives.Even in Desert Storm APFSDS and smooth barrels (like the smooth brains that developed them) did less work than Burger IFVs.
here's a reply, champ
Just watch, the next major war is going to be fought with tanks firing drones from 155mm smoothbore guns.
HESH is fun to sayhesh hesh hesh
>>65091839HESH WANT SEX
Except HESH can be fired from smoothbore, it just costs more. Also the Bongs dropped rifled for smoothbore for Chally 3.
>>65091843>Bongs dropped rifled for smoothbore for Chally 3Don't worry, they will change their minds several times more before deciding on the correct choice.
rifled barrels need to be replaced more often, right? has this been factored into the cost analysis?
it's funny how Britain being the birth place of the tank has one of the worst tanks in service
Are there any smoothbore HE shells that aren't as expensive as multi-purpose HE shells?
>>65091885Worst of the west, still better than the rest.
>>65091806HESH is actually incredible against infantry. Challenger 2s survived infantry ambushes simply because they knocked down cover faster than enemy infantry could move to them.
does a tank really have a need for a full power cannon these days though?its been shown that just trying to break through enemy armor with just inertia with hopes of making a giant hole isnt really effective anymore, and they really dont usually need the several miles of range its capable ofit seems to me something like a large recoilless rifle, rockets, or a mortar would be much more effective since you could have a significantly larger payload without a big heavy barrel that needs to be replaced all the time
Rifled gun is one thing, bagged charges on a manually loaded gun in this age is what's truly absurd.
>>65092141You want something on your tank that can reliably go into a high threat environment and reliably destroy enemy positions. You also want your tank to be able to engage anything it can see regardless of distance or target value. This puts a lot of constraints on the tank's main armament: - it needs to have at least the power of a roughly 105mm gun so that it can destroy fortifications. Autocannons or AGLs don't cut it. - it needs enough accuracy to be able to directly hit fortifications reliably, which excludes pretty much all forms of indirect fire - it needs to maintain this accuracy at long range, which excludes recoilless rifles and unguided - it needs to be cheap enough that you can lob rounds at every position that might be concealing something dangerous. Conventional guided munitions are out.- it needs to be able to function in heavily contested areas. This means that the weapon needs to not shit itself when faced with EW, and it also shouldn't fold to basic air defense (including stuff like infantry just shooting the munitions down). This largely excludes suicide drones which are slow enough to shoot down and (excluding fibre optic systems, which are less cheap) are very vulnerable to EW.When you look at what actually works for the tank's doctrinal role, there isn't really much that can do the job besides a conventional tank cannon. Everything else is either too expensive, too inaccurate, too short ranged, or too ineffectual to do the same job.The only real question is whether you need something like an MBT at all, but if you follow that line of logic then the question isn't about the tank gun, but about whether the idea of manned vehicles fighting on the frontline makes sense at all (spoiler alert - it does, but that is its own discussion).
>>65091806Slowest twist rate I've ever seen
>>65092053>>>65091806 (OP) #>HESH is actually incredible against infantrySoveit trial of 105mm HESH from captured M60 demonstrated that HESH sucks completely as anti infantry. They had 40% dud rates when round hits soil, frag kill area was 3 times less than Soviet 115mm HE (btw Soveit tank HE are mediocre themselves because of wrong steel).HESH can be somewhat better against old tanks. As Yugo trials demonstrated 105mm HESH hit against T-54 hull cracks it's weldings producing unrepairable kill with every hit. But hits against front turret only killed crew, HEAT could set ammo on fire but not HESH.
>>65092141Tanks need 30-50mm auto cannon with anti drone capability. Land equivalent of naval 5" universal gun. Like in WWII when age of the carrier started main use of ships guns was shooting aircrafts, with occasional shooting at other targets. Heaver calibers most of the time didn't participate in battles at all.
It's so great how this board has so many people who are much smarter than every military planner in the world. I guess they come here for the elevated conversation.
Arent HE rounds lethal to tank crew on 120mm and beyond in theory? overpressure and shit, in theory wouldnt you want to pack only HE since its kills infantry and buildingsThere needs to be more tank duels to figure this shit out, nobody knows if HESH actually works well or if darts are overkill
>>65094091> round hits soilWell there's you're problem. HESH is anti-fortification. Use it against infantry in buildings and bunkers.
>>65094091if the enemy infantry is in the open then commander's and coaxial machineguns are the perfect weapon against them as they're designed for that.the entire purpose of the big cannon on the tank is to kill armor and blow up fortifications and doing the latter is the entire purpose of HESH and it's been the absolute best shell type for that role until the fielding of smart HE shells with multi purpose delay fuses.>ut hits against front turret only killed crewthat's basically an ideal solution because the interior of the tank will be chewed up by the spall and littered with the crew's insides, only salvageable if it's completely rebuilt at the factory and sitting in the open without the crew means it's likely going to be taking shots until it's a smoldering fire.>HEAT could set ammo on fire but not HESH.HEAT was not very reliable in terms of actually killing things until the late 70s-80 and still isn't so today on russian side because designing a shaped charge for penetration often means sacrificing on the blast force that follows through the tiny hole made by the jet. you either need a very crude or shallow shaped charge like the one on a super bazooka or you need advanced design that maximizes explosive, incendiary and smoke effects post penetration like the AT4 with special charge liner materials, shaped, explosives or multi-stage warheads and so on. it's really not a trivial task to do it all and still perform.
>>65094162depends on the location hit and HE has lower hit probability than saboted darts that fly much faster and flatter.
HE shells, with their thinned casings to accommodate a sufficient amount of explosive, are often destroyed by impact with armor or concrete. The tip-mounted instantaneous fuse, designed to maximize fragmentation, will also contribute to the reduced penetration effect.
>>65094700>if the enemy infantry is in the open then commander's and coaxial machineguns are the perfect weapon against them as they're designed for thatThere is also targets outside coax range, infantry targets in trenches, group infantry targets (AMP round targets set included infantry platoon in edge formation with requirement to defeat at least 50% of it's personnel).>that's basically an ideal solution because the interior of the tank will be chewed up by the spall and littered with the crew's insides, only salvageable if it's completely rebuilt at the factoryThis not what yugo tests found. Turret hits spall was only lethal against crew (very slow frags), tank was good to go with crew swap. Hull hits (including glacis) craked welds.>HEAT was not very reliable in terms of actually killing things until the late 70s-80 Depends on HEAT and a target.
>>65094700>you either need a very crude or shallow shaped charge like the one on a super bazookaThat's boomer bollocks, shaped charge lethality depends on the caliber and penetration overmatch over armor.See Hungarian trials vs t-5585mm (RPG-7) is mediocre.100 mm (tank guns and ATGMs) hurt125 mm is over.
>>65091885>it's funny how transparent and stupid warriortard threads and post areIndeed.
